Organization Development and Change - Example

Organization Development and Change Name: Course: Date: Organization Development and Change Change is often referred as the only constant feature of anyone’s life. The same applies to the existence of organizations, which are constantly incorporating one form of change or the other in their daily activities. Change is defined as any alteration from one form to another. This concept is used to refer to the process whereby something ceases to exist as it is known and becomes different, either wholesomely or in part. There are various degrees of change, ranging from a slight alteration to a complete overhaul. Organizational change occurs when its structure and, or policies are modified. Change is fostered through a review and subsequent alteration of management structures and business processes. Organizational change often revolves around the desire to achieve better results, in line with the visions of the business (Corrigan, 2013). However, organizational change is not always a welcome idea for everyone involved. It occurs when promotional forces of change are in place, while its opposing or resistant forces are contained. Change in organizations is brought about by different factors, either external or from within the organization. External forces which drive change are those that the organization has little or no control of, such as competition and new technology. Competition from other organizations may force a business to re-strategize and conceive innovative ideas which will place it above its rivals. Technological advancements which impact on business processes of an organization are also causes for change to occur. The organization has to adopt emerging trends in technology in order to keep up with its competitors. A rise in consumer demand coupled with diminishing supply is also a reason for change. The organization exists to serve its customers, therefore if the demand for their products increases; the business is challenged to enhance its capacity to meet these demands. Failure to do so may lead to loss of consumers to contender brands. Government policy actions, most of them unprecedented, affect business processes of an organization. A company is forced to adjust to comply with the expectations and guidelines lay out by the government. Economic conditions of an organization’s consumers are among common instigators of change. These conditions can also be brought about by mergers and acquisitions, which lead to change in organizational culture. Additionally, the social trends in a society have an effect on business activities in any organizational set up. These trends constitute income levels and product preference. An organization cannot determine or influence the activities of its external environment, although it can restructure itself to deal with the matters arising from these processes. Internally, the driving forces of change are equally varying. A decline in employee effectiveness may prompt modifications that result in increased efficiency. A decrease in workers’ efficiency is detrimental to the organization’s productivity and requires correction. Crisis situations such as those related to finance can also necessitate a restructuring process within the business. A change in employees’ expectations and the general work climate are factors contributing to the occurrence of change processes within an organization. The work environment in the company is affected by several issues such as cultural diversity, stereotyping and management policies among others. The above factors are synonymous to driving or promotional forces for the change process. Adjustments in organizations occur whenever there is a shift between two opposing forces, promotional and restraining powers. While driving forces enhance or foster change, the opposite is the same for restraining forces. These are obstacles to change. There are instances when the two forces are at equilibrium. The organization is therefore static, meaning that no change is registered during this time. Resistance to change, which forms part of restraining forces, is mainly witnessed among employees of the organization. This is regardless to the position they occupy within the business, which may be subordinate or managerial. The reasons for being redundant to modifications vary from one individual or group to the other. One major reason is self interest. Some workers are egocentric and as a result refuse to accept any alterations which may not be beneficial to them. Fear of the unknown is another cause for restraint. Employees are familiar to a certain order such that they become skeptical when there is possibility for change to occur (Whiteley et al, 2007). They become open to the possibility that they may not be able to cope once the adjustments are implemented. Fear of loss either of job position or of employment is responsible for making workers resistant to change. This brings about doubts as to whether they will retain their jobs after the process of modification is complete. Trepidation instigated by failure is an addition to the list of restraining forces where change is concerned. The organization may employ measures to gauge whether its workers have overcome the challenges that come with the process of transition. Employees may be under the impression that failure to merge with the new manner of conducting activities will cost them their jobs. This makes them refuse to go along with the organization’s proposed transformations. The notion of change management is common to most businesses today. However, it varies depending on the nature of the business, the people involved and how far the change process is understood by its participants. The general change process involves three crucial steps, identifying the need for transformation, implementing modifications and monitoring the subsequent outcomes. One of the primary models for comprehending organizational change was developed by physician and social scientist, Kurt Lewin in the 1940s. This was derived from the analogy of the changing shape of a block of ice. This theory still holds today and is widely adopted by businesses and organizations worldwide. Known as Lewin’s three step model, it involves three processes in a particular order, unfreezing, movement or actual change, and refreezing (Kotter, 2012). The first process of unfreezing involves developing ways for workers to let go of their usual pattern, one which has proved to be counterproductive. This helps in preparing them for predetermined change, and is achieved using a number of steps. Increasing driving forces, decreasing restraining forces and finding a status quo of these forces are constituent factors in the process of unfreezing. The second stage of movement or change is implemented after the participants have been sufficiently educated. Given that the change process may be dynamic, it could take a long time if it is to yield effective results. New tasks and responsibilities are delegated to employees, a factor that will slow down the pace of the organization’s activities. The ultimate effect of change is arrived at when it is made permanent. This is through the process of refreezing, which involves thriving in the changes that have been implemented. Employees gradually begin to incorporate the adjustments into their daily routines, thus making them an integral part of their existence in the organization. The adjustments become a pattern, just like the one which was initially present before the process of unfreezing. The change process is heavily influenced by the notion of change agency and change agents. These concepts are of great impact when creating the climate for change, especially its social construction. The success and, or failure of a change process is determined by the notion of change agency, and attributes of change agents. The notion of change agency comprises the means through which change is fostered at any level, including organizational. The social construction of change and involvement refers to the manner in which social factors such as communication and conversations pave way for change at organizational level. Change agency may be monologic or dialogic. The former is authoritative while the latter is relational. This means that change initiated through monologic agency is somewhat administered without the cooperation of those involved. The authoritative people are often those in managerial positions. The decision to implement changes may be predetermined or arrived at spontaneously by those in authority, after which it is imposed on subordinate members of the organization. There is no room for communication between the authority and participants in the change process. In such scenarios, the figures of authority in the organization often act as change agents. Monologic agency is therefore not part of the social construction of change, at least not in a positive manner. Dialogic agency on the other hand engages the other stakeholders in the organization, including subordinate staff. The employees are granted opportunity to participate in the change process (Senior et al, 2006). They can air their grievances and suggestions on how to implement change, especially because the modifications will directly affect them. Dialogic agency is essential in minimizing restraining forces to the change process. All the fears and doubts that employees feel can be alleviated by using this relational concept. The change sponsor communicates directly with the people on whom the adjustments will bear the greatest impact. This is considered the best form of change agency, although the former can be used in instances when people are resistant to the change process. A change agent is an individual or group that implements the change process. It is important to ensure that the traits and attributes of these individuals fit their job profile, in order to create efficiency. Change agents may be internal, external, or a combination of both. Internal change agents exist within the organization and are familiar with the problem at hand. External agents are hired on contact basis whenever there is a setback, and are briefed on the issue to be tackled before they commence their work. Consultants, for instance are part of external change agents. Internal-external or a combination of the two elements is usually a taskforce within the organization formed to specifically deal with issues pertaining the change process. They are perceived as being both internal and external for two reasons. They are members of the organization that wants to implement change, while at the same time act independent of the business when need arises (Gioia et al, 2010). This is without bias and with the welfare off the organization at the forefront. The role of change agents varies as they are tasked with different responsibilities. These tasks range from advocacy to counselors when opportunity presents itself. In order to create the appropriate climate for the social construction of change and involvement, change agents must posses several traits. They have to be visionary, for instance, to achieve the intended purpose of the change process. The agents have to be orderly in the presentation of their ideas. A clear vision of the transition process gives details of when, how and why change is necessary for the prosperity of the organization. The change agent does not have to be in a senior position in the organization for them to appear purposeful. A well thought out plan does not necessarily have to follow a designed path; there could be alternative means to achieve the same goal, provided they are all outlined in their proposal. It is obvious that participants in the change process want to be guided; hence a leader who is not well organized will not be attractive to them. The virtue of patience and the attribute of persistence are also essential traits of a change agent. Patience is required because change is a gradual process. Meaningful change has to be experienced, and the procedure may have a different effect on those involved. Despite having setbacks, change agents ought to be persistent in their pursuit for the desired organizational transformations. Being trustworthy would be an added advantage as it increases approachability. Participants may find it easier to connect and relate with a person with whom they have established trust. Trust also builds confidence among workers because they are assured that the appointed agent will do what is right without fear of discrimination. Change agents ought to lead by example and be the change for which they strongly advocate. Knowledge of the task ahead is crucial in understanding the change process. This makes it necessary for change agents to be knowledgeable. Change agents form the central part of the process of transformation, other than the desired change itself. They impact differently on the climate needed to effect change. This is through the responsibilities they undertake during the initial level of unfreezing, which serves as the preparation stage. They are charged with dispensing necessary information regarding the activities set to take place. This means they identify and use the most effective media of communication to break the ice on surrounding the change process. Participants, mostly employees are educated the rationale behind the expected adjustments, including the consequences thereafter. In so doing, they are relieved of the burden of fear which is a common feature where change is concerned. Employee involvement is also at the core of the change process. The social construction of change champions for communication between change agents and those involved, in this case workers. Change agents play the role of engaging the employees in the process by hearing their grievances and accommodating their suggestions (O'Neill et al, 2007). The tension that may be present with the interaction with senior members of the organization is alleviated and instead, confidence is built. Cooperation is also fostered through effective involvement of employees, making them more receptive to change. Restraints to the change process are brought about by fear among other factors, which when given the chance to be aired, will diminish to lower levels. Support is a responsibility of change agents, one which is crucial in reducing restraining forces to the process of transformation (Harigopal, 2006). These agents are required to make facilitative as well as supportive efforts to prevent resistance from the employees. The needs and plights of the participating workers ought to be considered throughout the change process. Given the fact that organizational change may be a tiresome process, change agents should develop methods of dealing with such challenges. This helps in reducing conflicts and succeeds in keeping the workers motivated. More often than not, new tasks and responsibilities are delegated to the workforce in line with the provisions of the change process. Allowing the workers time off to recover from the newly acquired heavy workload, may serve to boost their morale and make them more receptive to change (Schabracq, 2007). The notion of change agency, traits and attributes of change agents can lead to either failure or success of the social construction of change and involvement. This paper succeeds in proving this fact as seen in the way it defines the change process and includes how change agency and change agents are central in transforming an organization. Clearly, organizations should be careful on the mode of agency they employ and the characteristics of its change agents. Change is a common aspect in every organization, the difference lies in its implementation. The climate in which change is constructed should encompass effective change agency and agents if it is to be successful. Failure to do so results in the opposite. References Corrigan, L. (2013). Organizational Change Theory. Houston Chronicle. Retrieved from http://smallbusiness.chron.com/organizational-change-theory-47948.html Gioia D. A., Price N.K., Hamilton A. (2010). Forging an Identity: An Insider-outsider Study of Processes Involved in the Formation of Organizational Identity. Administrative Science Quarterly. Retrieved from http://asq.sagepub.com/content/55/1/1.abstract Harigopal, K. (2006). Management of organizational change: Leveraging transformation. New Delhi: Response Books. Kotter, J. P. (2012). Leading change. Boston, Mass: Harvard Business Review Press. O'Neill, A., & Jabri, M. (September 04, 2007). Legitimation and group conversational practices: implications for managing change. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 28, 6, 571-588. Schabracq, M. (2007). Changing organizational culture: The change agent's guidebook. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons. Senior, B., & Fleming, J. (2006). Organizational change. Harlow, England: Prentice Hall/Financial Times. Whiteley, A. M., & Whiteley, J. (2007). Core values and organizational change: Theory and practice. Hackensack], New Jersey: World Scientific. Read More